time-messenger-mcp-server

set_channel_favorite

Favorites or unfavorites a channel, returning unfavorited channels to Channels or direct/group messages to Direct Messages.

Instructions

Favorite or unfavorite one channel. Unfavoriting returns a channel to Channels, or a direct/group message to Direct Messages.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "team_id": "<team_id>",
      "channel_id": "<channel_id>",
      "favorite": "<favorite>"
    },
    "name": "set_channel_favorite"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`team_id`	Yes	Team ID.
`favorite`	Yes	True to favorite, false to unfavorite.
`channel_id`	Yes	Channel ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.4.0Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a side effect of favorite=false — the channel returns to Channels or Direct Messages — which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about idempotency, whether the operation is reversible, permissions required, or the return shape.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the action is front-loaded. The second sentence usefully elaborates on the unfavorite branch rather than padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple three-parameter toggle with no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers what the tool does and its visible effect. The main omission is any statement about return values or permission requirements, which an agent might want before calling.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with all three parameters documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the notion of 'one channel' and reaffirms the boolean's meaning via the unfavorite side effect, which does not go beyond what the schema already states.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (favorite/unfavorite) and resource (one channel), and covers both directions of the toggle in a single sentence. It is unambiguous, though it does not contrast itself with any sibling tool such as list_channels or move_channel_to_category.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the verb: call it to toggle a channel's favorite state. There is no explicit guidance on prerequisites (e.g., membership in the team/channel) or when to prefer this over category-related siblings like move_channel_to_category.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.